MPC OPPOSES THE RIGHT OF REPLY BILL
The members of the Malacanang Press Corps Press join our industry peers in opposing the passage of the right of reply bill as we believe it will curtail press freedom.
The right of reply bill imposes an unnecessary burden on journalists to prove that their stories are fair at all times. As a general rule, journalists conscientiously get the other side before filing or airing a story. If this is not possible, editors or station managers see to it that the other side is printed or aired, or a clarification is issued the next day. If a person feels maligned by a story, he or she can sue the journalist.
There are many avenues for the airing of one’s side. That is why we view the bill as unnecessary and a threat to democracy.
It seems convenient for some lawmakers who have withdrawn support for the bill to claim that they wanted to protect press freedom when they initially voted for the measure. They even blamed journalists for not speaking up earlier. Hello? This is plain mental dishonesty.
Popularity: 1% [?]
The right to reply bill is use to curtail
freedom of the press, freedom of speech and
freddom of opinion.
In the Blogophere, you cannot enforce that kind
of law. People with antiquated minds thinks they
are still living in the past world of Public
Relation press releases.
Grow up, you dummy !
People with a lot of sins to hide are afraid
of the light.
So, they gag the fellow who tells the truth
about them.
You cannot destroy the truth. You can in the meantime, but not forever. Look at he fate of
the Marcos regime. They hide the truth. When
it came out. The stench is too much for the public.
Is that the original text of the statement of the MPC over the right of reply bill and in toto or merely paraphrased or said in the words of the one who posted it and just a parcel of the whole?
Will anyone please comment on this kind of piece? Am I the only one who sees it differently but I reserve my right to blog at a later time.
@RG
i dont get this:
“The right of reply bill imposes an unnecessary burden on journalists to prove that their stories are fair at all times.”
bakit? all the bill does it assure space for a reply…
you also used ‘unnecessary’ in another way:
“There are many avenues for the airing of one’s side. That is why we view the bill as unnecessary and a threat to democracy.”
unnecesary meaning useless.
but if papers already print replies, then the bill would not apply to them.
if so, how can it curtail what they are ALREADY doing?
are there any other arguments?
i am sympathetic to a free press, but are there other arguments that this would change the kinds of articles journalists are already writing?
ang hirap sa freedom of the press, gusto nila freedom without responsibilities. ang mga taga-press, gusto nila maniwala tayo sa lahat ng sinasabi nila. lahat ng tao, tanga, sila lang ang magaling, nagiisip, at may karapatang pakinggan.
equal rights lang naman ang right to reply. sabi nila, “The right of reply bill imposes an unnecessary burden on journalists to prove that their stories are fair at all times.”
it’s “unnecessary” to prove their stories are fair? so being “fair” is not necessary? or is it the proof only that is not necessary? if you can’t prove fairness, how will we know it’s fair? because they say they are?
again: “As a general rule, journalists conscientiously get the other side before filing or airing a story. If this is not possible, editors or station managers see to it that the other side is printed or aired, or a clarification is issued the next day.”
so, what’s the definition of “conscientiously”? and how do we know that they “conscientiously” pursued the other side? again, if they offer no proof of their conscientiousness, how do we know they’re conscientious? because they say they are?
and again: “If a person feels maligned by a story, he or she can sue the journalist.”
and how much does the common reader have to shell out to bring the case to court? and if the common reader sues, then the burden of proof lies with him/her. and there’s the rub. where do we get the proof?
i’ve always believed that the media and trapos are cut from the same cloth, and this is one more proof i’m right. politicians accused of a crime will always say, “so, sue me. bring the case to court. show me the proof.” and that’s exactly what our “freedom”-loving press people are saying this time.
two sides of the same coin. two halves of the same rotten fruit. two whiffs of the same stinking scent. two… i could go on forever with this.
oh, pareng gunding, ang kaibhan ng public media sa blogsphere, ang public media nakalantad. ang blog, kailangan sadyain mo. ayaw mo ng sinasabi ng blogger, wag mong puntahan. galit ka sa sinabi, mag-comment ka.
saan tayo magko-comment sa broadsheet, sa radyo, o sa tv? hawak nila lahat ng lumalabas sa kanila. lahat ba pinapayagan nilang makapagsalita?
kaya nga ako? di nanonood ng tv, di nagbabasa ng broadsheet, at di nakikinig sa mga brodkaster sa radyo. a pox on your media houses!
hindi naman sinasabi ng media na sila lang ang tama… hindi naman sinasabi ng media na palagi silang tapat… like everybody,the media also have their imperfections.
but the point is,ano nga ba ang tunay na dahilan ng pagpasa ng right of reply bill? sino nga ba ang TUNAY na makikinabang dito? ang nagtitinda ng balot sa daan? mga bata sa lansangan? samakatuwid,gagagamitin lamang ng nakakataas ang right of reply upang guluhin ang katotohanan at bulagin ang sambayanan.
and to think na inilabas ito on the time na malapit na ang 2010 elections….
sa totoo lang,matagal nang nirerespeto ng media ang karapatan ng mga tao na tumugon. ano ba ang silbi ng letter to the editor? erratum?textboxes? emails? shout-outs? ano ba ang silbi ng mga kasong libel, subjudice at contempt? ang hirap sa inyo, hinihikayat kayong mag-komento,ayaw nyo namang tumugon.
isa nga po pala akong campus journalist,at bilang isa sa mga apektado ng right of reply bill, ako kabilang ang mga kapwa ko campus journalists ay patuloy na lumalaban sa pagsulong nito! no to right of reply bill!
When a party says something, there is always the possibility that a second party, somewhere, will dis-agree. Indeed, nobody should gag anybody. And that fits one good reason behind the idea of “right of reply” if we search for the good side of it.
I think its not about threatening the freedom of speech because right of reply is in fact pro-freedom of speech. [Bakit nagsalita ka ayaw mo naman na may sumagot sa sinasabi mo. So it is you that wants to gag!]
Besides, people have rights to make fools of themselves. [Ilagay na natin na tuwid ang sinasabi ng isang journalist may namimilit pa na baluktutin ito.] It is the third party that determines what is sane and what is insane. Exchage of conflicting views only strenghten the truth in the end.
I think the complication is that commercial publications have limited space. Mahal ang space doon per collumn. And there are other venues to make reply. So I agree the proposed law has complications that weight it down, and deems it [unnecessary]
Mag open na rin sila ng blogsite para sabihin ang gusto nilang sabihin in reply to something.
“Mag open na rin sila ng blogsite para sabihin ang gusto nilang sabihin in reply to something.”
rltj,
hindi makakayanan ng mga sikmura ng mga iyon ang sasabihin ng ibang commenters dito!
Rights to reply bill is the cure to bias, prejudices, suggestive gossips and innuendos spewed by our ignorant pekeng-peryodistas
Right-to-reply is to correct the bias, prejudices, innuendoes, suggestive gossips and conveniently left-out news pieces by our ignorant, uneducated journalists.
Why would they want to create a blog for RORB? This site has good following. If someone creates a blog they get lost in millions and millions of other sites.
Bert is a good example that needs Rights-to-Reply. Bert is censuring anyone who don’t think his way. And that is the mentality of our pekeng-peryodistas.